WISE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1:25-cv-01271
D.D.C.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Sam Wise, a triple-board-certified oral surgeon, sued numerous federal and state agencies and officials, alleging a campaign of retaliation after making whistleblower disclosures.
- Wise claimed that, following a federal whistleblower complaint, regulatory boards unjustifiably suspended his dental licenses and imposed a significant fine.
- He alleged connections between a non-party (Dr. Haghighi) and various officials/agents, asserting a broad conspiracy involving state and federal actors, as well as judicial officers.
- Wise referenced an FBI raid of his clinics regarding a minor billing discrepancy and accused state and federal agencies of misconduct and judicial officers of pervasive bias.
- He sought $24 million in damages, reinstatement of licenses, apologies, and injunctive relief.
- The case was before the court on an initial review of Wise's pro se complaint and motions for injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Pleading | Wise has presented an evidence-based, detailed account of official wrongdoing. | (Not required; sua sponte review) | Complaint too vague and fantastical; fails Rule 8 standard. |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Court has jurisdiction over federal constitutional and statutory claims. | (Not required; sua sponte review) | Allegations are too fanciful and insubstantial for jurisdiction. |
| Claim Plausibility | Conspiracy and retaliation claims are well-supported by narrative detail. | (Not required; sua sponte review) | No plausible, concrete facts to support actionable claims. |
| Preliminary Injunctive Relief | Entitled to injunctions to prevent continuing harm. | (Not required; moot) | Denied as moot due to dismissal of the complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards but must state a claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff must establish federal court jurisdiction)
- Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019) (courts must assess subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)